Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety, and the description adds beta-specific operational context: candidate improvements are only live while under test, no candidate is currently active, and there is no fallback—it is a fully working router. This lets the agent calibrate reliability expectations without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the beta router identity and current state. The retirement date is slightly extra but supports the claim that no candidate is active right now.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a beta alias of an existing router, it covers identity, current parity, intended use, comparison process, and absence of fallback. Since there is no output schema, stating the same response shape as ask_pipeworx adequately closes the loop.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all six aliases and the question parameter fully documented in the schema. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no extra semantic detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router over 5,721 tools. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements and explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It doesn't enumerate when-not-to-use conditions or explicitly name ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, but the beta/stable distinction is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.